On 10.06.24 23:28, Zeng, Oak wrote:
Hi Jason, Leon,
I was able to fix the issue from my side. Things work fine now.
Can you enlarge the dma list, then make tests with fio? Not sure if the
performance is better or not.
Thanks,
Zhu Yanjun
I got two questions though:
1) The value returned from dma_link_range function is not contiguous, see below print. The "linked pa" is the function return.
I think dma_map_sgtable API would return some contiguous dma address. Is the dma-map_sgtable api is more efficient regarding the iommu page table? i.e., try to use bigger page size, such as use 2M page size when it is possible. With your new API, does it also have such consideration? I vaguely remembered Jason mentioned such thing, but my print below doesn't look like so. Maybe I need to test bigger range (only 16 pages range in the test of below printing). Comment?
[17584.665126] drm_svm_hmmptr_map_dma_pages iova.dma_addr = 0x0, linked pa = 18ef3f000
[17584.665146] drm_svm_hmmptr_map_dma_pages iova.dma_addr = 0x0, linked pa = 190d00000
[17584.665150] drm_svm_hmmptr_map_dma_pages iova.dma_addr = 0x0, linked pa = 190024000
[17584.665153] drm_svm_hmmptr_map_dma_pages iova.dma_addr = 0x0, linked pa = 178e89000
2) in the comment of dma_link_range function, it is said: " @dma_offset needs to be advanced by the caller with the size of previous page that was linked + DMA address returned for the previous page".
Is this description correct? I don't understand the part "+ DMA address returned for the previous page ".
In my codes, let's say I call this function to link 10 pages, the first dma_offset is 0, second is 4k, third 8k. This worked for me. I didn't add the previously returned dma address.
Maybe I need more test. But any comment?
Thanks,
Oak
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 1:25 PM
To: Zeng, Oak <oak.zeng@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>;
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>; Marek Szyprowski
<m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx>; Will
Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>; Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@xxxxxxxxxx>;
Brost, Matthew <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>; Hellstrom, Thomas
<thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxx>; Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>; Jens
Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>; Keith Busch <kbusch@xxxxxxxxxx>; Sagi
Grimberg <sagi@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxx>;
Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Tian, Kevin
<kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>; Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>;
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>; Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-
foundation.org>; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-nvme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx; Bart Van Assche
<bvanassche@xxxxxxx>; Damien Le Moal
<damien.lemoal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Amir Goldstein
<amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>; josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Martin K. Petersen
<martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>; daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Williams, Dan J
<dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>; jack@xxxxxxxx; Zhu Yanjun
<zyjzyj2000@xxxxxxxxx>; Bommu, Krishnaiah
<krishnaiah.bommu@xxxxxxxxx>; Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
<himal.prasad.ghimiray@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC RESEND 00/16] Split IOMMU DMA mapping operation to
two steps
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 04:40:19PM +0000, Zeng, Oak wrote:
Thanks Leon and Yanjun for the reply!
Based on the reply, we will continue use the current version for
test (as it is tested for vfio and rdma). We will switch to v1 once
it is fully tested/reviewed.
I'm glad you are finding it useful, one of my interests with this work
is to improve all the HMM users.
Jason
--
Best
